From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Greear Subject: Re: RFC: Removing busy-spin in pktgen. Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 09:34:38 -0700 Message-ID: <453E409E.9010002@candelatech.com> References: <453D582C.9020705@candelatech.com> <17725.55765.509953.762136@robur.slu.se> <20061024.031455.55723788.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Robert.Olsson@data.slu.se, netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from ns2.lanforge.com ([66.165.47.211]:23988 "EHLO ns2.lanforge.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932437AbWJXQdU (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Oct 2006 12:33:20 -0400 To: David Miller In-Reply-To: <20061024.031455.55723788.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org David Miller wrote: > From: Robert Olsson > Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:16:05 +0200 > > >> My first instinct is to avoid the hook in general code and pktgen let spin >> to only affect testing. >> > > Mine too. > > Why make everyone in the world make that check in netif_wake_queue(), > or wherever, when %99.99999999999 of the time it'll never be used? > It could be a compile-time option, and even if compiled in, it should only be an if branch on a pointer. Is there any noticeable performance hit for an if check if you wrap it with unlikely? Thanks, Ben > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com